Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP197800033 Action Letter Sf> 78 -33 347 July 12, 19'78 (Regular-Day Meeting) = = 2 Thl~ ordinance establishes an Historic Architectural Review Board which do thl~ following a Recommend the establishment of Historic Districts to the Board b Upon its own motion, or the complaint of any citizen, the Review Board would review any exterior disrepair which might occur to buildings within the Historic Districts designated by the Board r I I c Issue Certificates of Appropriateness for any alterations, re- storations or demolitions to buildings within any Historic District, upon receipt of an application for such certificate from the owner of the structure d Compile an inventor~ for presentation to the Boar~ of all exist- ing buildings in the County which are more than one hundred years old e Design an appropriate marker bearing the seal of the County and the words "Historic Building" and invite each owner of an historic landmark, at the owner's expense, to display and maintain such marker f Recommend any additions of Historic Districts to the Board g Conduct regular monthly meetings to enforce the ordinance and recommend any amendments to effectuate the purposes of the ordinance 3 Tte ordinance would not affect existing zoning within any designated Historic District and all uses would be permitted in accordance with existing zoning 4 EE.ch owner of an historic landmark would be required to maintain the landmark ir a manner to prevent deterioration of any exterior architectural feature, ar.d would be given up to 180 days to correct deterioration of architectural fE'atures 5 Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Architectural Review Board would h1lve the right to appeal to the Board 6 AllY person aggrieved by a decision of the Board could appeal this decision to the Circuit Court In addition to the right or appeal, any owner or an h..storic landmark could raze or demolish said structure provided he has applied to the Board for such right and has ror a set period of time made a bona fide offer to sell the landmark and no contract has been executed for such sale ,... 7 Landmarks less than one hundred years old could also be considered and de- s:Lgnated by the Architectural Review Board The owners of houses listed on the inventory would enter into a covenant and sign an agreement to be r'Norded By voluntarily entering the program, they will relinquish some rlghts but will gain other advantages for the protection of their property r I I Mr D')rrier said the committee has attempted to draft an ordinance which is acceptable to the citizens of the County While it is intended that the ordinance be integrated into the com.lete up-dating of the Zoning Ordinance the Committee recommends that the ordinance be presEnt~d to the Planning Commission ror public reaction prior to consideration or the completE Z)ning Ordinance By consideration of this matter separately, the Board will be able to determine if there is support in the County for such measures Mr B~rnard Chamberlain said the idea of marking some places for preservation is long overdue rhe committee had asked he and Mr Tim Michel to make a survey of buildings and sites wt.ich they felt would be of historic interest They have dO.ne this and found 175 bUildin,;s one-hundred years old or older The only question now is whether the committee should ,;0 to the property owners first, or the Board adopt the ordinance first ThE,re followed a brief discussion concerning the merits of the ordinance and whether such should be voluntary or involuntary Mr Dorrier said the committee had decided to present the ordinance to the Board at this time because they felt it was important and deserven separate consideration from the whole zoning ordinance He then offered motion to refer the ordinance (drafted as Article 21 Historic District) to the Planning COmmission ror the..r review and comment The motion was seconded by Dr Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote AYES NAYS ABSENT Hessrs Dorrier, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush I,one ~essrs Fisher and Henley [ Ag'mda Item No 13 Public Hearing SP-78-33 Albert and Percy Clark To locate a country store on 1 300 acres zoned A-I pursuant to Section 2-1-25(14) of the County Zoning , Ordinan~e Property is located on north side of Route 6 at the intersection or Route 6 and I 800 C')urty Tax Map 126, Parcel 33D Scottsville District (Advertised in the Daily Progressl on June 3L and July 6, 1978 ) Mr t,eeler gave the staff's report ChlrE.cter of the Area A ~on-conforming general store exists on the south side of Route 6 All other pr~p<,rty in the vicinity is undeveloped Route 6 has state and county scenic high~ray designations Staf], Comment The non-conforming ~eneral RtoPP. whi ~h p.y1 !'=l.t:pn on t:'h; ~ 'n~f"'I"""oQ,""'+<rr ~~.... .................~ '1-... .co~__ 348 Sf 78~33 July 12, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) ~l 700+ square feet J'rom the 4,000 floor area limitation for a general store Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the f'ollowing conditions 1 Compliance wi,h conditions imposed in variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals 2 Site plan apP"oval to include Planning Commission approval of landscaping 3. Highway DeJ:artment approval of entrances 4 All signs to ~omply with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance 5 Engineer's stress testing of' walls to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and Directcr ~r Inspections 6 Approval oj' appropriate state and local agencies 7 Fire Officual approval of' self-service gas pumps Mr Keeler saiel that on July 11, 1978 the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the abo're petition with the seven conditions as listed He then said that the Highway Department approval read; "area of the store on the north side of Route 6 currently has uncontrolled ac.:ess Sight distance along this access varies from approximately 250 feet to approximate._y 550 feet We would recommend that a standard commercial entrance be installed allowing access only at the western part of the property which has the greatest , sight distance Remo,al of all access along the eastern part of the property f100m Route 6 "j' The public hea.~ir.g was opened A Mr Clark was present He said he needed to get back in business as quic.<l~ as possible They had been in business in this location for 15 years With no one else pr~s€nt to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed Mr Dorrier said there is a hardship involved because Mr Clark has been out of businesf since May because of' the fire As the representative for that district he has been trying to get him through thE' process The citizens in the area are unanimously in favor of gettin~ the store back into business He asked the timetable for submission of a site plan and said the store is locatei tn the exact same location and there would be no variance as he under- stands it Also he anked if the site plan condition could be deleted Mr Keeler said the applicant has alreaiy received two variances from' the Board of Zoning Appeals One of the conditions in the firnt variance states "landscape plan to be submitted in conjunction with site plan submit1;al" This was a condition placed on the site plan by the Board of Zoning Appeals and he did not feel same could be waived Mr St John said he did not see anyway that the requii'ement for a site plan could be waived Mr Dorrier said that the building is being bui.~t on the same foundations and Mr Clark has been in compliance with all existing inspections Mr Dorrier noted that all things will be the same except the parking area and entrances and he feels that requiring Mr Clark to wait until September to show that he is going to put the same store back in existence is a little arbitrary Mr St John sail when a building on a nonconforming lot is destroyed 75%, the owner must apply for a vari,lUce or a special permit in order to rebuild Because this use is allowed in the A-I ZO:1e the applicant decided on the special permit route The zoning ordinance ordinarily ~equires a site plan and the Board of Zoning Appeals also required a site plan Mr ROLda)ush noted a letter in his file dated May 23, 1978, from Mr J Benjamin Dick Zoning Administrator, addressed to Albert and Percy Clark in which it is stated; "Therefore, y~u need to follow these steps to open your store to the public; 1) A variance from the ce1ic highway regulations as to setback, parking and signs Filing deadline for the Jl.ne 13th hearing for the Board of Zoning l;ppeals is May 29 If you intend to get an early sh.rt on renovation, I advise you to make this application immediately 2) A special use pe'rmit The next deadline for filing is June 28, 1978, 1'or late June and early July hearingf A site plan must be developed and approved by the Planning Commission The next deadline ls June 20th with hearings in July " Mr Clark sai<l he came down to the County Building the morning after he received the variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals on the scenic highway requirements He talked to Mr Vaughan, who ill turn sent him to see Mr Keeler He was then inf'ormed that he had gotten the wrong variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals That is the reason he did not have the site plan He has been to the Board of Zoning Appeals twice f'or a variance Mr Keeler sa..d while the special use permit was being processed for Mr Clark, he noticed that the bllllding exceeded the permitted area He so notified Mr Clark and the Zoning Administrator made an effort to get the variance on a special meeting yesterday af'ternoon before the Board of Zoning Appeals The Planning Commission heard this request last night and it _s on the Board's agenda for today At no time did the staf'f ever advise Mr Clark that he .lid not need a site plan Mr Lindstrom asked if the mistake on the variance affected gr Clark's ability to pursue a site plan Mr Keeler said no Mr St John said he has b',e~ trying to find somewhere in this conversation that Mr Clark was misinformed This wculd give him a vested right to build without a site plan However, he does not see anyth:ln~: of that nature Mr Roudabush s~.id he did not see that there was anything the Board could do except to request the staff >0 expedite approval of the site plan ,~otion was then of'fered by Mr Lindstrom to appro~e SP-78-33 with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and req~efting the staff to expedite approval of the site plan The motion was seconded by Dr Ia~hE,tta and carried by the f'ollowing recorded vote '-- AYES NAYS ABSENT Messrs DorriE,r, Iachetta Lindstrom and Roudabush None Messrs Fisher and Henley